Over and under ‘double double’ track.

[Dashworth87]

Morning Gents. 

 

What a nightmare it is when you are not too cleaver with forums!

 

Anyway... I previously published a build which went no further than building base boards and placing some track on top. The intention was that the original layout would be transportable and could be built using modules depending on the space being used at the time. After a bit if thinking about it, and my other hobbies taking a bit of a back seat in place of model railways, I thought I would scrap the modular build and go for something a little more permanent.

 

Fast forward a few months and I had gutted my 'garden room', lathered the interior in bitumen paint and insulated it using XPS foam. it was then clad with more insulation/moisture barriers before being clad. The garden room stayed like this toward the end of 2023 whilst other more pressing matters and general life got in the way of any more building work.

At the beginning of 2024, things carried on getting in the way of any substantial progress and it remained half built until about 2 months ago. We had a nice summer this year in the UK. which was inspiring enough to get out into the garden and finish the building of the base board and begin trying to figure out what sort of layout I wanted. I still need to finish the cladding and find some suitable sheet material for the interior of the roof, but it was finished enough to get a table in built out of a mix of recycled OSB and a fair chunk of change on lumber and hardware to get it done.

 

The layout is approx. 8'x10'. standing room is approx. 3ft square in the middle. the rest is filled with track. 

 

I am very much a bargain hunter when it comes to Kato and have been acquiring track for a number of years. most of it is eBay and Facebook market place purchases and the occasional store purchase... more recently I have spent a fair whack of cash at Plaza Japan only to find out I still need a few more bits of track! 

I am also very visual when it comes to track plans and layouts... I have previously flirted with SCARM and AnyRail however found it quite difficult to get my head round. 

 

As of this morning, I have figured out I need an additions 10 sections of 248mm double straight which I may or may not purchase this week, 2 sections of 60mm double straight and a few more rerailers that will become crossings at a later date. 

I thought I would publish some photos and show some of the progress I have made with the layout now I have a permanent place to put it all and start getting some building work done. 

 

The far right of the layout... excuse the poor levelling of the viaduct. The incline looks far more gradual in person. I did not want both sides of the board overhanging the shed doorway and the kids coming in and out playing with the layout meant that there needed to be a little more room to accommodate them rushing in and out without catching themselves on the edge of the layout.

 

 

Moving round to the middle of the layout, both doubles split into the V15 station section giving me a significant amount of room to model/build a station. The plan is that the whole station area will be approx. 50mm higher than the majority of the layout, drawing attention to the area and making it the focal point at the rear of the board. The middle section is 3ft deep so reasonably easy to reach over and rescue any trains that have derailed. 

I have not added any further rerailers at the back of the build, however I will likely add them before the trains leave either side of the station as an added safety measure and prevent myself having to potentially have to reach over constantly if the kids get a bit too trigger happy with the throttle. 

 

The geometry of the track really bugged me with the viaduct. The corners for the viaduct, even though it is double track, is a completely different radius to all of the other double track radius. As a result, when attempting to use the viaduct corners, nothing would align correctly on the right hand side of the board.

There were a few concepts before the photo was taken but sadly, regardless of what I tried, the track would need to be pulled into place or would require track to be cut/customised which seemed silly given its modular and I am not planning on using any flexi track. 

 

As a result, I have been forced to use regular single track on one corner of the viaduct which will be supported underneath by scenery/foam to assist in the incline. The other corner thankfully is suitable enough to use double track. however again, the viaduct corners completely screw up the track geometry and so I have two easement curves back to back which fit perfectly. 

Edited September 11 by Dashworth87

[Dashworth87]

The other side of the layout is slightly different to than how I first envisioned it. Sadly I could not fit a helix feeding out of the station on the inner double. Even when adding an additional 60/120mm straight immediately after the V15 splitter caused the top section of the Helix to 'foul' the outer double so a bit of a think was required.

 

As it stands, there is enough room to have a incline of approx. 3.5% which should be well within the tolerances of most of Kato's Japanese locos. The incline can begin either side of under the bridge and feed up to the station area which, as I mentioned before, will be raised as a centrepiece at the rear of the layout.

I am sure if I thought about it a little harder I could probably make it work somehow, however after many good nights sleep and going to the bottom of the garden with a coffee, I was unable to make it work to a point where I was happy with it and it would not effect the geometry of the rest of the layout.

The foam underneath the viaduct section will eventually be replaced with some far more substantial XPS foam and modelled/contoured to suit the board as a begin getting a feel for what I want to do in terms of layers and what and where I want to have scenery rise and fall.

 

Huzzah! A helix! hopefully!... this is a rough mock up so please be kind. As it stands, the inner double looper ends with an easement curve and then immediately enters another easement curve using the smallest radius of double track... I do not plan on running large/long loco's on the inner double and instead plan on using limited express trains (5/6 carriages) or metro style commuter trains which will either be 2 car DMU/EMU or much longer (up to 10 coaches) but they seem to be a lot more forgiving when it comes to inclines and radius. I don't know if this is due to the height compared to other locomotives such as the Shinkansen, however they are tried and tested and seem to put up with a lot more fuss than other locomotives.

My intention with the Helix as it stands is unknown.... The plan was to always have the helix assist with the incline entering/leaving the station and to hide it under scenery.

Going forward with the build.... I may just remove it. At this point in time, I am building the helix simply because its a personal challenge and when I was unable to place it at the rear of the board, I took it as a personal affront to my layout planning skills... 😄 

 

Anyway... that's where I am up to at the moment. I may have to wait until the beginning of next month go get the remaining track that I need to complete both double loops. Then I can get the foam I require and start working on the DIY inclines... and try and make the helix work 😄 

 

 

Edited September 11 by Dashworth87

[Yavianice]

The helix is too steep for trains to run on it efficiently (especially if you want to run japanese trains). 

 

The steepest recommended angle from my experience should not exceed 2%.

[Kingmeow]

That single loop helix looks way too tight at Yaviance pointed out.  Try to open it up as much as possible with less radius curve pieces.  You have space for that unless you plan to hide, say, inside a mountain.  Which really isn't a good idea as you know where the trains will derail....yes, inside the mountain!  🙂

[Dashworth87]

27 minutes ago, Yavianice said:

The helix is too steep for trains to run on it efficiently (especially if you want to run japanese trains). 

 

The steepest recommended angle from my experience should not exceed 2%.

the incline will begin before the helix. I am waaaaay ahead of you my friend!

[cteno4]

But with a helix you are stuck that it has to go a full elevation for a train and any track support to go under in only one loop of the helix. Staring the grade before or after can’t help this issue unless you are just coming from something much higher. With that 315/282 radius double track you are at 2.5% on the outside and 2.8% on the inside if you do a 5cm rise and support the track plates from the outside edges. You can mock it up with some like 2cm wide strips of stiff chipboard to go under the track joints and block supporting it in the inside and outside. This trims a couple of mm off your height clearance but doable with no raised pantographs for a test. It will probably work, but expect trains to slow a lot on the 360 incline curves. If you do the helix with 414/381 track you get 1.9% outside and 2.1% grade on the inside to rise 5cm in the helix.

 

Why not just bring that track from the bridge down on a gradient from the bridge all the way to the front there to where you have the single track under the bridge. Eyeballing it looks to be a 2.2% grade or less then. The helix is just probably going to cause problems . You would need to make sure your scenery hiding the helix was very removable as I would expect this to be a place to have to get at cars. This is the Biggest “I wish I had done that” thing I’ve heard from modelers is when they hide track and not have clear and easy access. No helix would be a lot more flexible for your scenery plans later as well.

jeff

[Dashworth87]

9 hours ago, cteno4 said:

But with a helix you are stuck that it has to go a full elevation for a train and any track support to go under in only one loop of the helix. Staring the grade before or after can’t help this issue unless you are just coming from something much higher. With that 315/282 radius double track you are at 2.5% on the outside and 2.8% on the inside if you do a 5cm rise and support the track plates from the outside edges. You can mock it up with some like 2cm wide strips of stiff chipboard to go under the track joints and block supporting it in the inside and outside. This trims a couple of mm off your height clearance but doable with no raised pantographs for a test. It will probably work, but expect trains to slow a lot on the 360 incline curves. If you do the helix with 414/381 track you get 1.9% outside and 2.1% grade on the inside to rise 5cm in the helix.

 

Why not just bring that track from the bridge down on a gradient from the bridge all the way to the front there to where you have the single track under the bridge. Eyeballing it looks to be a 2.2% grade or less then. The helix is just probably going to cause problems . You would need to make sure your scenery hiding the helix was very removable as I would expect this to be a place to have to get at cars. This is the Biggest “I wish I had done that” thing I’ve heard from modelers is when they hide track and not have clear and easy access. No helix would be a lot more flexible for your scenery plans later as well.

jeff

 

Hi Jeff, Thanks for your previous comments on my post about incline on easement curves....

 

If I am honest, I will probably take your advice and the advice of the others above.

I would still like to try and make the Helix work though, even if I have to go up another full circle of track to make the gradient something like 1% to make it work correctly. Like I said - I feel personally attacked by the layout for not letting me place the helix where I want to put it. 😄

IF the helix doesn't work well, even at a mock stage, I will likely remove it from the layout completely. There is plenty of scope already for incline and decline throughout the board so it will just be one less thing I need to worry about.

 

It would give me far more space to introduce the 'branch/heritage steam' line I have been thinking about so out with one, in with another maybe.

 

If I am honest, it really is probably one too many things to over complicate the layout. 

Dash

[cteno4]

Dash,

 

layout planning is all about tradeoffs! If you really want the helix, I’m sure you could make it work, but it I’ll require tradeoffs with other things. Again the tradeoffs!

 

best to keep playing and experimenting as this is what leads you to the best permutation for you.

 

cheers

 

jeff

[Dashworth87]

1 hour ago, cteno4 said:

Dash,

 

layout planning is all about tradeoffs! If you really want the helix, I’m sure you could make it work, but it I’ll require tradeoffs with other things. Again the tradeoffs!

 

best to keep playing and experimenting as this is what leads you to the best permutation for you.

 

cheers

 

jeff

 

Do you think an additional loop of track would make it work? So the Helix would be a double loop, not just a single loop?

Dash

Edited September 12 by Dashworth87

[Kingmeow]

Remember, actual curve track grade is higher that a straight track with the same physical grade.  So if your helix or any curved track is at a physical 2% grade, the locomotive experiences a grade that is more than 2%.  How much more depends on the radius.  If it's a straight track then it's a true 2%.

 

There's a formula out there on the web that does this calculation for you.

 

Found it!  http://railroadboy.com/grade/

Edited September 12 by Kingmeow

[Kamome]

Is your helix using the R282/R315 double track? I would say this is quite tight and with such a short gradient, I think some trains will struggle to navigate, not to mention a possible derailment point for heavier loads. Perhaps it would be better to take out the tight helix loop out and have a more gradual incline on the inside radius double track. It may require your rerailing track/crossing to be relocated. It'll also make a nice spot for watching trains as 2 out of the 4 tracks change levels.

 

It might also be worth checking the loading gauge as the trains pass under the initial curve of your helix. The standard 50mm piers that Kato use for their overpasses allows raised pantographs to clear the viaduct sections. You can actually check this with the little blue uni-joiner removal tool that comes with many track sets. Unless the lower track and upper track are positioned with at least 50mm clearance, there's a high chance something on the roof may snag, especially on a curve. 

[cteno4]

A second loop won’t help as each loop needs 50mm clearance all the way under the one above it. If you wanted to go up to 10cm elevation then two 50mm loops would work. But you only need to get up 5cm. You can’t do two 25mm loops as your train couldn’t run on 25mm height under each loop. The Kato 5cm as Kamome notes is set to be high enough that a train on a piece of Unitrak will clear under a crossing with pantographs up.

 

Trains have more rolling resistance on curves than on straightaways. The tighter the curve the more the resistance and thus the slower it will go at the same power setting. So 2% grade on a curve will be harder for the train, thus slower at the same power setting, than on a straight 2% grade. Grade is rise over run, and a 2% grade on straight or curved track is measured that way, but because of the extra resistance on the train due to the curves in addition to the grade there is a calculated “compensated” grade number for curves that adds the measured grade and the curve of the track. This is calculated out for work on real trains and wouldn’t necessarily scale to work with model trains (with scale changes comes issue of volume changes that doesn’t make the physics scale linearly), but the gist is it will run more slowly on a curved grade. This is why I say mock it up and see the difference with your trains.

 

Jeff

[Dashworth87]

Sounds like the helix is going to get binned then gents… 

will share further updates when I have some ☺️

[Dashworth87]

So the Helix has gone... after the comments on here and an N gauge FB group, the consensus is/was that it was highly likely to cause more problems than it was worth.

The incline is just a mock up at the moment so excuse the poor landscaping and gradient thus far.

 

Someone else also suggested moving the crossing slightly further to the right so that I could potentially run a 2% gradient and make is usable for pretty much any rolling stock. This will more than likely get done when the track is eventually glued into place after I have done the landscaping. 

 

In the mean time, by removing the helix, it has given me ample space to introduce the heritage line I have been toying with. The plan is ideally to have 1-2 steam engines pulling old rolling stock as a kind of 'tourist attraction' for the town. 

I would ideally like to have the heritage line as a loop of track or dog bone style layout for some lazy running but may need some more track as I have very little left. I may also consider trying to get fancy with the wiring. if it is possible with DC, it would very cool if I could have the train go from station to station and then reverse the current and have it do it on repeat, ideally with a little pause at each terminus.

 

With the Milton Keynes model railway show coming up in a few weeks, I may drive up and see what they have to offer... the problem is, unless I can source it second hand, it is always cheaper to order from Plaza Japan even when you include postage... I think waiting till payday at the end of the month will result in another large purchase of track and maybe some rolling stock to treat myself. 

 

 

Regards

Dash

Edited September 15 by Dashworth87

[Kamome]

Looks much better and will allow for some interesting views. 

 

Adding a small rural station to the heritage line could be nice, but need to give some consideration to how that will sit on base level and the inner track will incline. 

 

If a rural embankment, this will reduce space for scenery near the heritage line. Perhaps modern concrete landslide embankment measures could fit the bill as a lot of rural areas have this. 

 

Can’t recall whether you were intending to mount everything on foam, but having some options to have the rural line also going over small rivers below base level would really help it’s believability. Not many lines can run on flat ground in Japan like they would in the UK. 

[Dashworth87]

1 hour ago, Kamome said:

Looks much better and will allow for some interesting views. 

 

Adding a small rural station to the heritage line could be nice, but need to give some consideration to how that will sit on base level and the inner track will incline. 

 

If a rural embankment, this will reduce space for scenery near the heritage line. Perhaps modern concrete landslide embankment measures could fit the bill as a lot of rural areas have this. 

 

Can’t recall whether you were intending to mount everything on foam, but having some options to have the rural line also going over small rivers below base level would really help it’s believability. Not many lines can run on flat ground in Japan like they would in the UK. 

 

My intention is to have 'level 0' as a layer of 50mm foam. That way I can go down as well as up and include, space allowing, a bridge over a river/stream on the 'ground level' double track.

I honestly don't know where the heritage line will run to and from as I'm only messing around with spare track at the moment. I would still like to include a shunting yard of some description so I don't have to put all the trains away constantly. This sadly means spending a considerable amount of money on turnouts but is a want rather than a need.

I'll see how I do this month and next month for money as I would like to get the foam and work out the inclines before I order anymore track 

[bill937ca]

You could store trains in a typical four track Japanese train station, one with sidings either side of the main line.  Only requires four turnouts.

[Dashworth87]

2 hours ago, bill937ca said:

You could store trains in a typical four track Japanese train station, one with sidings either side of the main line.  Only requires four turnouts.

It’s not a bad idea.

 

Problem is directly after either end of the station, I have super elevated curves with no space to introduce any further track/turnouts. 

 

God building a layout is such a mind game 😂

[toc36]

Dash,

 

I made a similar "temp" layout a few years ago.  Two things I would consider:

 

1.  Move the wall "locked" turn forward.  You can shorten the the straight-aways taking you into the corner and instead of joining with a 90 degree turn, you might want to experiment with getting two 45 degree turns.

 

2.  The rise where you removed the helix still looks steep.  Since you are going to build on foam, you might want to use layer and figure out a way to"de-elevate" the tracks going under.

 

Take care,

Toc